Deardorff or Zone VI--No Flames, Please!

[marshall_arbitman1]

Hi all!

 

I'm a longtime 4x5 user who's getting into 8x10 to make contacts and

Ziatypes. I've narrowed my search for a field camera to two that seem

to fit my budget and needs-- a Zone VI Vermont Model (Not the

Tachihara/Wista-type) and a Deardorff with front swings, both used--

both about $1400.

 

The Zone VI looks just like the Wisner Traditional. The Deardorff

seems about 9 condition, bellows have been replaced, are slightly

stiff. Each one has the requisite movements, both weigh within a

pound or so of the other. I'm sure I'd not regret having either, but

am looking for advice on any kind of longterm "gotchas" or little

peeves that might crop up.

 

Any thoughts?

[marv]

I have a Zone VI and am quite happy with it, no real "gotchas". I have a 4X5 Zone VI also so I got the insert for the front to utilize the smaller 4X5 boards, that is kind of handy. If you want real flexibility the Deardorff maybe the way to go. You see a lot of used accesories available ie. 4X5 and 5X7 backs, lens boards etc. on ebay.

[light-zone]

I have the feeling that the Deardorff may have a higher "re-sale" value down the road, you know, when you decide to get into 8X20 format.

[carl_weese]

I find the Deardorff design better. Faster to set up and take down, the secondary sliding lens panel is a brilliant idea that too few modern cameras utilize. Either camera will work well with longer lenses and for closeups, but I find the Deardorff design does better with short lenses. How important that is depends on the lenses you use. I think the build quality of Deardorffs is distinctly superior to the ZVI, but the ZVI is likely to be much newer so condition will be important too.---Carl

[ellis_vener_photography]

Deardorff.

[anthony_j._kohler]

Marshall, I had a Deardorff I was going to have restored, and sold it in favor of a Zone VI, which I love. Not to tell you what to do, but to let you know why: The Zone VI has a triple-extension bellows and focussing rack, while the Deardorff has only a double. This may or may not impact your decision, as you do not indicate what lenses you intend to use. But I couldn't get studio shots with a 19" Artar with only a double-extension camera, and that is why I chose the Zone VI.

 

Tony

[arthur_gottschalk]

Go with the Deardorff. I've looked at the Zone VI and it seems kinda flexible rather than rock solid when its all locked up. The Deardorff will also hold its value and if it's a 9 as you suggest, the price is a bargain. Also, it has 33" of extension, which should be enough for virtually all uses-- with the right lens. Arthur

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Dumb question, Deardoff of course! If the camera is in good shape, you can sell it for $1700 to 2000 on Ebay if you decide you did not like 8x10 or Ziatype (I prefer the DOP method myself), try selling a Zone VI for that amount on E bay! Besides I looked at both cameras and I think the Dorf if much better made!

[neal_shields]

I would suggest that you look at Ken Hough's web page, and pay special attention to the cautions about split bottoms. I don't know anything about ZoneVIs but I would take my Deardorff to bed with me if my wife would let me.

 

Neal

[marshall_arbitman1]

Neal:

 

I have a split bottom myself. I find it works well for me.

[neil_poulsen1]

The Deardorff is as much a triple extension camera as the Zone VI. It racks out both to the front and the back simultaneously.

 

I had a Deardorff, and I enjoyed the camera. I don't know about the one you're considering, but the inside of the bellows on mine wasn't black so much as a darker sort of gray. I had evidence that it reflected light back onto the negative or transparency. Plus, I could only just barely use a 90mm with this camera, because the bellows was packed so tightly. I should indicate that my camera was refinished and updated with a new bellows by a well known Deardorff person. Installation & refinishing was first rate, I never had a light leak, or it never came loose. Perhaps original Deardorff bellows are better. Towards the end, even Deardorff got their bellows from a variety of sources.

 

For longer focal lengths, I think that it's a fantastic camera, and I enjoyed using it. Another feature I enjoyed on the Deardorff is the ability to independently raise and lower the front lensboard for fine-tuning rise/fall. An advantage of the 5x7 sized camera is that there's extra room around the format inside the camera, and this helps avoid off-the-bellows flare. My camera did not have swing on the front, and I didn't miss it. You can occassionally run across Graflok backs. I would avoid rotating back, because they add distance between the lens and focal plane.

 

A little on the negative side, I felt that the rear standard was just not very tight. It doesn't lock and relies on the gear mechanism to keep it "tight". But, did the camera move while taking a photo? Probably not.

 

I sold my Deardorff to someone who likes the camera. I purchased a used Arca, and it makes up for all of the problems that I had with the Deardorff. And, the Arca isn't that much heavier. With the Arca, I obtain the flexibility that I missed having with the Deardorff.

[john_kasaian1]

Marshall, Look at it this way: Do you want a camera thats like a Deardorff or do you want a Deardorff? Given equal condition---and I agree with the poster who recommended looking over Ken Hough's Deardorff Historical website for tips on evaluating old 'dorffs---I'd go with with the Deardorff. If on the other hand, the Deardorff needed restoration to be usable, I'd go with the Zone VI unless 1) I'm into restoring cameras or 2) I couldn't find a user 8x10 Deardorff in your price range(which, at $1400, shouldn't be a problem) The Deardorff is a treasure thats an absolute joy to use and apppreciates in value if you take care of it. Besides, they look GREAT! My 'dorff has a certain undefineable quality. Its like it tempts(seduces?) me to get out in the field and use it. That said, keep in mind any old wooden view camera is capable of developing, with use, leaks and little glitches over the years. Nothing has ever happened with my 50-something year old 'dorff that couldn't be easily, cheaply, and quickly fixed good as new. This IMHO, is really a plus since I can make most repairs myself. If I had to send it in to a reputable repairman, who knows how long it would take(the two or three guys I'm aware of both have lengthly waiting lists) or cost? Thats why National Geographic photographers would take thier 'dorff's up the Amazon and WW2 Marines put bayonets on thier 'dorff's tripods for beach landings. Hey, if the light is bad and theres nothing to shoot, you can sit on a rock and look at all the "character" your 'dorff has acquired over the years and let your imagination wander: thats History you're looking at! Good Luck!

[dan_smith]

One can never own too many Deardorffs.

[brian_ellis3]

I don't know anything about the Zone VI but I have a Deardorff and like it a lot. It's simple to open, close, and operate. If it's in good condition it's exceptionally solid for a wood camera. The sliding lens panel that someone else mentioned is a wonderful tool for anyone who otherwise would use front rise with any frequency. My only complaint, other than the weight which is about normal for an 8x10 which is to say heavy, is that front tilt and front rise are controlled by the same wing nut. If you have a heavy lens it can be hard to move one without also moving the other, though of course you can always move the back if the resulting foreground distortion isn't critical. I use lenses ranging from 159 mm to 520 mm and it works well with all of them. I like the way the bellows can be extended by moving both the front forward and the back backward since this allows the camera's weight to be evenly distributed over the tripod when using a long lens.

 

Owning a Deardorff provides you with a tangible connection to the past masters and the golden age of 8x10 photography, which I kind of like. However, Zone VIs are fine cameras too and I don't think you'll go far wrong with either. I do think the resale value of the Deardorff probably will be greater but once you've experienced the pleasures of the 8x10 format I don't think you'll want to sell the camera any time soon.

[chris_patti1]

I had a restored Deardorff for a while, and I have to confess that I never understood what all the fuss is about. After using Zone VIs and Tachi's, I didn't really see anything distinguishing about the Deardorff (well, OK, the rising lensboard is a nice feature). My feeling is that the "cult" aspects of a Deardorff have a lot to do with their appeal. That said, they are perfectly usable, and the cult status does mean the re-sale value is high (but so is the purchase price). But for functionality, I find my lowly metal Eastman Commercial a superior camera. And if you want "cult" value, Ansel Adams used one.

[neil_poulsen1]

My comment " . . . makes up for all of the problems that I had with the Deardorff," is a bit strong. I liked the Deardorff a lot, but opted for a system that gives me more flexibility in using wide-angle lenses.